[Oslc-Automation] we missed some updates when removing "interaction styles" from the draft

[John Arwe]

Someone pointed out to me offline that Appendix A (informative examples) 
still had all the old language around synch/asynch, so I scrubbed it. 
Please review the changes via [1].

Likewise, there was an incorrect Note (informative, again) in the spec's 
Query Capabilities section that I updated as well and you should review 
[2].  This compare shows some noise (false-positive changes), so here is 
the summary of what it shows:
- all images show as changed; I did not touch them
- all the single column tables show changed; I did not touch them.
- section labelled Line 334 to 331 is the QC Note changes
-- first block is all adding ! before AutomationWhatever "wikiwords" so 
Twiki stops thinking they should be page names
-- add paragraph separator between Notes
-- add second "if" clause.  When a provider responds with 201 and the 
resource is both a Request and a Response, then a client could ignore the 
QC and simply GET the response using the URL in the Location header.


[1] 
http://open-services.net/bin/rdiff/Main/AutoSpecificationV2Samples?rev2=6&rev1=7&render=sequential
[2] 
http://open-services.net/bin/rdiff/Main/AutoSpecificationV2?rev2=23&rev1=24&render=sequential

Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20120717/b8a18266/attachment-0003.html>